Reading Planet Earth, part Four

The final episode from the series of four 1-hour videos from National Geographic.

The first episode plus the introduction can be seen here, the second episode can be seen here while the third can be seen here.

I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from this last episode.  The third episode had shown how good science could determine the deadly cause and effect of past times and enact critically important solutions.  Well, the final episode had the same underlying theme.  That despite the huge scale of change and transformation required by millions of people to restore the planet to health, it’s not impossible, not by a long chalk.

So I will close these past four Posts by thanking Dogs of Doubt for first bringing these videos to light.  I truly hope that they have been for you as  Perfect Stranger described them in his Post, “they explained so much that it is impossible not to recognize the changes we have made to our environment.”  Nothing to add to that.

National Geographic – Strange Days on Planet Earth – Part 4 of 4 – Troubled Waters

13 thoughts on “Reading Planet Earth, part Four”

    1. Brilliant quote – attributed to Confucius I believe.

      Another favourite of mine (from the Turtle Grand Master in Kung-Fu Panda [i.e. CG Jung]) is this: “The past is history. The future is a mystery. Today is a gift. That is why we call it the present.”

      Like

      Reply

  2. Nope. Sorry. I thought episode 3 was more optimistic. High-tech solutions may well be our potential salvation; but it will take a long time for them to become available everywhere.

    Having spent twenty years working as a hydrogeologist (some of that time in the Environment Agency), I am quite familiar with the dangers of agro-chemicals like Atrazine. Therefore, the fact that low levels of exposure ( 0.1 parts per billion) are more dangerous than higher ones is really scary. However, far from being used as an excuse to raise the permissible threshold of exposure, this should make us all the more determined to eradicate the use of such chemicals.

    We should also be very scared of the long memory that water has, and of the any dangerous cocktails it can mix on its journey from watershed to the sea; especially if many open ocean creatures actually spend a lot of time “checking us out” (as they would appear to be doing). I am very concerned by the suggestion that beluga whale carcasses are so full of toxins they would be classified as Hazardous Waste. This is a terrible indictment of our mismanagement of the planet.

    Those of you who have seen the near-term apocalyptic film “Children of Men” were probably particularly concerned by mention of exposure to chemicals in our drinking water and food that are giving rise to increased rates of miscarriages in women and decreased male fertility. Again, as a former hydrogeologist, this too scares me greatly.

    Mention is made also of the fact that toxins are concentrated greatly as they progress up the food chain and many are not excreted as waste (i.e. bioaccumulation) – again, v. scary. The only light at the end of the tunnel (that may yet prove not to be an oncoming train) appears to be biotechnology but of what use is that to people in poor countries? However, it is very good to see farmers in Queensland recognising the damage they have done; and taking appropriate (low tech) action like planting trees.

    Maybe there is hope for us yet. Thanks again for posting all four videos. We all have much to learn; let us hope the World may yet be found to be populated with open-minded, diligent, students.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Solutions? There is 1 🙂

      “Waste less heat, use less energy” – You are scientist .. see the sense behind it, look at what that would do to the owners of the coal-fired power plant … what does a 30% in income loss do to any business? 🙂

      It works … what do I have to do ,,, blog on it? come on!!!! look into it .. peer review my simple idea.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Yes I see the sense behind it but, you have also identified the reason it won’t happen: Growthmania.

        Like

      2. The generations of 40 years ago got by with 75% less energy than us, if we were to drop our individual energy by 35% that would have the same effect as reducing our population by half.

        Like

      3. Very true but – to repeat my point – growthmania dictates that the only way out of a debt crisis is more consumption. Therefore, I am afraid that, whether it is more supermarkets being opened or more cars rolling off the production line, quantitative growth is not – and cannot be – the answer…
        Know your limits!

        Until our politicians can bring themselves to take this on board, we have zero chance of achieving your very laudable aim of all getting by on less: See Tim Jackson’s Prosperity Without Growth

        Like

    2. No, there is no need to sacrifice anything, all it takes is to understand how to manage energy consumption, the 35% drop would come through better efficiency not in sacrificing rights or products. So although growth-mania would eventually begin to creep in, it would be well after the CO2 levels are steadied.

      Once we remove the Coal we’d still have the gas and oil plants to contend with.

      Like

      Reply

  3. Well, once again, a big thanks to you two gentlemen for having the discussion while yours truly slept! Here are my thoughts in response.

    First, the simple idea of a 35% cut in the use of energy being the equivalent of a 50% reduction in population is brilliant. Both as a clear message for a positive way forward and as a measurable target for individuals, societies and nations. Indeed, just a couple of nights ago, five of us here in Payson agreed in principle to start a transition movement for Payson and when I read the statement from PS about that drop in energy then I thought wow, there’s the route forward for Transition Town Payson.

    Second, in answer to Martin, if we aren’t already there we are very close to that point in history where growth is over. Unless the principles of monetary processes are rewritten then growth is as dead as the dodo. The current US debt figure is $15.5tn, European debt around $14tn, British debt $9tn (400% of GDP), and on and on. As the Americans love to say, “Go Figure!”

    This is a period of very great change on the back of increasing awareness, day after day, that everything that matters to humans is at threat. And that is the real power of change afoot today.

    So PS your quotation, “Tell them and they will forget; show them and they may remember; but if you can somehow involve them, then they shall understand” is spot on.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I am afraid I allowed Donald’ maths to pass me by first time around…

      Donald say that 40 years ago per capita energy consumption was 75% less than today. Other ways of saying the same thing would therefore be:
      1. 40 years ago per capita consumption was 25% of what it is today; or
      2. Today per capita consumption is 4 times what it was 40 years ago.

      Given that the World population is also twice what it was 40 years ago, total energy consumption must be 8 times what it was 40 years ago. If so, please tell me how a 35% reduction from current per capita energy consumption achieve the same as a 50% reduction in population?

      Like

      Reply

      1. 25% is going back to the days of 1 fridge, 1 TV and a radio, a stereo and an electric stove.
        Today we have computers and other stuff so I added in an other 10%

        The population of the world in 1970 was 3.7 billion, not all of them used electricity but lets say they all did.
        Today, 6 Billion people use electricity so if they all stopped using 65% of their energy then the equivalence stands

        Politicians have nothing to do with it although it would be nice to have them on board.
        Most of our energy is wasted in high rise buildings, they leave their fluoro lights on all day in order to save “money” … they warm up the surrounding with their lights so they have to air condition their buildings even at night for the sake of saving on dollars. all energy wastage.
        We waste energy from just about every activity, I calculated that I could easily stop using 65% of my energy.
        Solar hot water is an other energy saver and so on.

        Virtually everybody has their TV on standby, there are millions of way to reduce energy consumption, it’s just that we have become gluttonous over it, same as water and oil.
        🙂

        Like

      3. The World population is now over 7 billion. Very nearly twice what it was 40 years ago.

        Jevons Paradox applies: Resource consumption accelerates unless per capita usage drops faster than population grows. I think this will only happen once things start getting noticeably uncomfortable… However, I also think that this is what is now happening.

        As Mike Berners-Lee says in How Bad Are Bananas?: The carbon footprint of everything…
        “If the Chinese middle class want a Western lifestyle, then Western lifestyles had better become lower carbon…” (p.191).

        Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.